Florida Supreme Court

Florida Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Florida has revised the state's criminal proceedings and changed the fast procedures and the schedule for submitting formal charges.

The new rules that come into force on July 1 are extended to reconquest, set a new starting point for quick test periods when formal fees are submitted at the time of arrest-and a 60-day period for the state in order to formally calculate a defendant to the approval to court.

The 6-1 court acted in March 13th in March 13th In RE: Changes to Florida Criminal Procedure rule 3.191Case No. SC2022-1123, not with Justice Jorge Labarga.

After taking oral arguments into account for a previous proposal and the comments on the current proposal, the court changed as follows: Rule 3.191 (quick procedure):

• Fast test sets now begin from the date on which formal fees are submitted and not the date of the arrest.

• The period in which the court has to define a case for the beginning of the court proceedings is at least 5 days, but the period of 45 days was extended to no more than 60 days. From the time when a quick request for procedures is submitted.

• The recovery period (the time when the state submitted a defendant after a defendant after a defendant submitted a message that the fast experimental period has expired) is extended from 10 days to 30 days and is now mandatory in all situations.

• The layoffs according to this rule will not be prejudice, unless the defendant's constitutional law on a quick procedure is violated. In this case, the discharge will take place with prejudices.

The court also changed rule 3.134 (time for the submission of formal charges) to request that the state submit formal charges against accused within 60 days. If the charges are not submitted by the deadline, the accused must be released out of his own recognition, unless a good reason is displayed.

Based on the comments that were received for his proposal, the court said additional changes be passed beyond the published proposal of the court, namely: The data in subdivision (b) are changed in such a way that it corresponds to the new reference period. The wording in subdivision (e) is changed in such a way that it corresponds to the definition of “formally charged” into a subdivision (D). “Or the court” is removed from the newly reset subdivision (O) (3) in order to make it clear that the court is not obliged to act if a defendant submits the necessary documents.

Justice Labarga said that the changes assumed by the majority “who continue to relax the quick process rule” are unjustified.

“Firstly, with the decision of the majority, I am defined a quick negotiation for the purposes of this rule [as starting] From the date on which formal fees are collected, instead of the date of the arrest, ”said Labarga five years ago, in Davis v. StateThe court passed the formal arrest as a starting point for running the fast court clock. “There I did not reflect on the position of the majority that the fast court law is in no way involved by the length of an examination or by the fact that a examined person is a well -known suspicious.”

On the contrary, Labarga observed that “[a] A formal standard of arrest would enable the law enforcement authorities to repeat a person repeatedly over a longer period of time without triggering procedural protective measures. “

Labarga said Davis as a “procedural hover”. “

Justice Labarga wrote that he also does not agree to extend the long-term recovery period from 10 days to mandatory 30 days, and before assuming that a relief is without prejudices, unless a high burden is fulfilled, the defendant's quick legal proceedings are violated.

“In fact, 10 days are a sufficient time before the state is put on trial because of a law enforcement that has already been exposed to the fast period of procedure,” he said. “In addition, a discharge with prejudices creates an appropriate review of the state to ensure that quick test requirements are met.”

The President of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Jason B. Blank, said that the FACDL is “extremely disappointed that the court expressed the real concerns that we have expressed that this change will have an impact on the criminal justice system and its participants. The negative effects will be felt and hinder before the courts in our state, not help, whereby the justice of accused and victims is found equally. “

The Court of Justice also refers to the rules for traffic and adolescents fast legal proceedings, 6.325 (fast procedure: only violations) and 8.090 (fast procedure), to their respective committees to take into account changes that are compatible with these changes.